TMI Blog2015 (1) TMI 1319X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e proprietor of the said unit. It is also contended by the appellant that after clubbing the value of the clearances of both the units are within the prescribed limit of exemption during the relevant period - exemption allowed - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - E/2003-2004/2006-EX(DB) - Final Order Nos. A/50986-50987/2015-EX(DB) - Dated:- 21-1-2015 - Shri P.K. Das, Member (J) a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tention of the ld. Advocate is that one of the Directors is the Proprietor of the said unit and the appellant is co-owner of the said unit. He relied upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of M/s. Elex Knitting Machinery Co. v. CCE, Chandigarh-I - 2003 (158) E.L.T. 499 (Tri.-Del.), which was upheld by the Hon ble Punjab Harayana High Court as reported in 2010 (258) E.L.T. A48 (P H). He al ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ppellant company is the proprietor of the said unit. It is also contended by the appellant that after clubbing the value of the clearances of both the units are within the prescribed limit of exemption during the relevant period. The Tribunal in the case of M/s. Elex Knitting Machinery Co. (supra) held as under :- 6. Apart from this, even otherwise legally it cannot be concluded that the appel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... In our considered view, in the present case, one of the Directors is the proprietor of other unit and therefore, the case of M/s. Elex Knitting Machinery Co. (supra) would squarely apply in the present case. 7. In view of the above discussion, following the decision of the Tribunal in the case of M/s. Elex Knitting Machinery Co. as upheld by Hon ble Punjab Haryana High Court, we allow both t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
